MUHAMMAD ARSHAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Establish the offices of Sections 161, 187, 201 and 215 Customs Rules, 2001, R71 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), decisions of Sections 9, 10, 11, 14 (8) and 22 Federal Tax Ombudsman The applicant reviewed his complaint on the first decision of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in which the Federal Tax Ombudsman decided not to intervene in the matter because the question is whether the Customs Appeal Tribunal at that time The question in front was whether or not diesel oil was smuggled. Despite the clear and solid documentary evidence received by the Customs Department that smuggling of diesel oil under reference was not done at all times, the Customs Department's anti-smuggling staff issued a show cause notice to confiscate the goods rather than to carry out the investigation. ? Handling the case, the customs department withdrew the case. It violated the proposed customs law and procedure without selling diesel oil and provided proper notice to the owner and his agent under section 2011 (1) of the Customs Act 1969. The mandatory prerequisite to do this and after receiving the final proof that the driver was not released under section 161 (10) of the Customs Act 1969 that diesel oil is concerned in this case. The Pakistan Settlement case turns out to be a traumatic example of misuse of powers by customs officials under the circumstances. The applicant / complainant had requested that the Federal Tax Ombudsman's decision be reviewed, (i) the department may be instructed to pay the full cost of diesel oil, plus repair charges for the oil tanker. (ii) Correspondence with other members of the Raiding Party in relation to section HA related violations of the law.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2010
